[zahlman]

If I said that I wanted to grab some leftovers from the fridge that would not mean that I considered anything in the fridge to be an acceptable meal.

I italicized "who refuse government assistance" for a reason: because that's the part that makes the claim a misrepresentation.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I italicized "who refuse government assistance" for a reason

This does not make an objective misrepresentation. It doesn't even make it a subjective misrepresentation. They would be objectively misrepresenting it if "mass-murder" is objectively incorrect and/or if "mentally ill people" is objectively incorrect. As I said in my previous comment: mass-murder is, at worst, subjectively incorrect and mentally ill people is obviously correct.

I don't have to wonder why they refuse government assistance. It's the mental illness. You are stating that you believe the policy is justified because they are mentally ill.

[zahlman]

> This does not make an objective misrepresentation. It doesn't even make it a subjective misrepresentation. They would be objectively misrepresenting it if "mass-murder" is objectively incorrect and/or if "mentally ill people" is objectively incorrect. As I said in my previous comment: mass-murder is, at worst, subjectively incorrect and mentally ill people is obviously correct.

It is objectively a misrepresentation. It was misrepresented as being about mentally ill people in general. In reality, it is about an identifiable subset of mentally ill people, for a clear reason that directly relates to the basis for subset identification. To describe it as "the mass-murder of mentally ill people" is to imply that it doesn't have anything to do with the government assistance question. But it does. That is what makes it misrepresentative.

> I don't have to wonder why they refuse government assistance. It's the mental illness.

Many mentally ill people do not refuse government assistance. In fact, probably a large majority of them are happy to receive government assistance.

> You are stating that you believe the policy is justified because they are mentally ill.

I am not stating that the policy is justified because they are mentally ill. I am not stating, and did not state, that the policy is justified at all. In fact, I explicitly said:

> I disagree with it, but it's objectively not what you're representing it as.

I will not reply to you further, because this is not a good-faith discussion — it is just you repeatedly refusing to acknowledge something that I have clearly established, and falsely claiming that I said things that I objectively did not say.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> this is not a good-faith discussion

That seems to happen a lot to you. You should consider your part in that.

> I disagree with it

This is not exclusive with justifying it.

> No, only those who refuse government assistance.

> Which inherently makes them a threat to others. Keep in mind that this is happening in the context of Iryna Zarutska getting stabbed to death.